Hi everyone. Before we get started on today’s topic, happy Pride! To all my colleagues who are lesbian, gay, (fellow) bisexual, trans, genderfluid, intersex, nonbinary, queer, asexual, questioning, or any combination of the above and other identities, you’re awesome. Thank you for being who you are. Please take time to celebrate you and the joy you bring to this world.
A few months ago, right after the elections, I met with a couple of board members of a progressive family foundation. It was a nice change of pace. In a world where the default is foundations deciding strategies and nonprofits are forced to apply for funding if they aligned, this foundation was trying to figure out how to transfer strategy-setting and decision-making authority to communities most affected by injustice. This is especially important now, when this administration is aiming to inflict as much harm and cruelty as it could to them.
There has been in recent years an increase in discussion about transferring power to those closest to the problems. I think it’s great. I believe that people and communities most affected by injustice, as well as the organizations and movements they lead, have the deepest knowledge and experience of the issues facing them and thus can propose solutions that are most likely to succeed.
That said, we need to acknowledge that decades of conditional support, short-term funding, and paternalism from funders and donors (though #NotAllFunders and #NotAllDonors) have created a pattern of harm that has profoundly shaped the psyche of nonprofit leaders and thus the entire sector. I’m calling it Funder-Inflicted Layered Trauma and Helplessness (FILTH), and it manifests in several ways, including:
Lessened ability to dream and imagine: It is rare to find a funder who will fund exactly what communities ask for. Most fund whatever is in their strategy, which often varies year to year. They fund one year at a time and never fully. They refuse to fund certain things, such as advocacy and political engagement. Over time, nonprofit leaders’ expansive imaginations and bold dreams are set aside for harsh, narrow, “practical” reality.
Fear of asking for what’s needed: The adage in fundraising is that you will hear ten noes for every yes. And the yes usually comes with caveats, such as the funder will only fund 10% of the project, or they’re only paying for certain expenses, or they won’t pay for overhead, or whatever. This trains nonprofits to ask only for what they think funders will fund, not what they know would most help them achieve their goals.
Focus on the short-term: Most progressive-leaning funders give only one-year grants, sometimes three, on very rare and almost miraculous occasions, five. (As opposed to conservative foundations, who give twenty-year grants). So nonprofit leaders adjust accordingly, planning one year at a time, often suppressing long-term thinking without meaning to.
Tendency toward individualism: We talk and joke about the Nonprofit Hunger Games, where organizations compete with one another for resources. This competitiveness is reinforced by funders’ default grant processes, which tend to pit organizations against one another. Even when nonprofits try to collaborate, it’s often not the deep, catalytic partnerships needed to solve entrenched problems.
Aversion to risk and failure: It’s rare to find a progressive-leaning funder who will fund a project that fails to meet its goals. Maybe they might do it for one year, but a second year of failure almost guarantees a severance of support. This trains nonprofit leaders to avoid taking chances and to only propose things they know will likely succeed.
…
Read full article here.
